Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest

[Highway63]

Would there be a way to include the Lincoln Highway in some form? I have a file all ready to go for Iowa, and Illinois is a case of cobbling together segments of existing routes with fine-tuning. It might have to be coded like IA 800 or something, although it shouldn't be counted in a state-route-mileage total. (Nebraska simply slapped the LH on top of existing 30 so it wouldn't be of benefit.)

[Duke87]

I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.

Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)

[vdeane]

I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.

Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)

Agreed.  Heck, the only reason I got involved in clinching things that aren't interstates is because Tim started drafting US/state routes and added multiplex detection, screwing with my maps/stats.  We seem to be getting involved with more and more niche systems, so some means of dealing with what people do/don't want to worry about is only going to get more important.  I can't possibly be the only person who clinches things just to make the map look good or to get certain region/system combos to 100%.

[Bickendan]

I actually agree with having a toggle for systems to track.

[si404]

you can do it manually (so you have to do it every time), and only by addition, not subtraction, already.

But something to make it easier would be good!

Anyway, this aside aside...

[Jim]

Regarding the ability to restrict to systems/regions/etc of interest:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/360

[yakra]

Topic split from usaush (United States Historic US Routes)

[US 89]

Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.

[Duke87]

Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.

I'd be all in favor of having separate toggleable systems for unsigned routes. At least to the degree there is interest in drafting the systems in question.

[Bickendan]

Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.

I'd be all in favor of having separate toggleable systems for unsigned routes. At least to the degree there is interest in drafting the systems in question.

ORH 

[Highway63]

Old thread, I know, but I would in favor of any measure that, at the very least, would separate out the United States because I'm not too keen on adding hundreds of miles of Great Plains only to see that I've traveled...7.56% of the routes.

[yakra]

Old thread, I know, but I would in favor of any measure that, at the very least, would separate out the United States because I'm not too keen on adding hundreds of miles of Great Plains only to see that I've traveled...7.56% of the routes.

Post moved from Overall Stats Ranking, as this seems more of a "stats restricted by country" thing.

[kjslaughter]

I'm not a builder, just a user of TM.  That said, I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.  No point in adding "specialty" and scenic routes until the main ones are all done.  From reading forums, it sounds like making new systems is fun and validating old ones isn't.  I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.

[bejacob]

I'm not a builder, just a user of TM.  That said, I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.  No point in adding "specialty" and scenic routes until the main ones are all done.  From reading forums, it sounds like making new systems is fun and validating old ones isn't.  I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.

That mirrors my sentiments exactly.

[si404]

I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.

We've activated systems at a rate of about 3 a week recently. We've got this message and are working on it!

I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.

Hard pass. For several reasons:

There's more to this site that is popular than North America. I can understand getting annoyed if Afghani and Mongolian national roads turned up (and I've resisted the temptation to flesh out these systems) - no one would use them. But tonight I'm activating systems that several people have travels on in Spain - I don't see why these must be treated as inferior to North American systems.

There's only one of these top tier systems that isn't either active, or in the review queue - ie produced to a reasonable level and able to be clinched. That system is claimed, I believe, else one of us more prolific builders would have taken it on.

Waiting for all state and provincial roads to be in production would thus mean waiting around on one person (who has quite a bit going on as well) before expansion. It's a silly idea and goes far beyond the sensible stuff we all agree on about making sure we seek to get systems reviewed and activated.